Who is to be blamed?
Plant and animal species are disappearing faster than at any time in
recorded history. Who is to be blamed?
Biodiversity — a word encompassing all living flora and fauna — is
declining faster than at any time in human history. Around 1 million species
already face extinction, many within decades, unless the world takes
transformative action to save natural systems. The at-risk population includes
a half-million land-based species and one-third of marine mammals and corals.
Most of the causes of this carnage seem familiar: logging, poaching,
overfishing by large industrial fleets, pollution, invasive species, the spread
of roads and cities to accommodate an exploding global population, now seven
billion and rising. If there is one alpha culprit, it is the clearing of
forests and wetlands for farms to feed all those people
Add to all this a relatively new threat: Global warming, driven largely
by the burning of fossil fuels, is expected to compound the damage. While
climate change has not been the dominant driver of biodiversity loss to date in
most parts of the world, it is projected to become as or more important.
Rising seas and increased extreme weather events propelled in part by
climate change — fire, floods, droughts — have already harmed many species. The
most obvious victim is the world’s coral reefs, which have suffered grievously
from ocean waters that have grown warmer and more acidic as a result of all the
carbon dioxide they’ve been asked to absorb.
Many ecologists insist that species are worth saving on their own, that
it’s simply morally wrong to drive any living creature to extinction. Wetlands
clean and purify water. Coral reefs nourish vast fish populations that feed the
world. Organic matter in the soil nourishes crops. Bees and other threatened
insects pollinate fruits and vegetables. Mangroves protect us from floods made
worse by rising seas.
Most of nature’s contributions are not fully replaceable. But humans can
stop or at least limit the damage. One critical task is to protect (and if
possible to enlarge) the world’s natural forests, which, according to a recent
paper by eminent ecologists in Science Advances, are home to fully two-thirds
of the world’s species. Intact forests also absorb and store enormous amounts
of carbon, so preserving them assists not only the species that live there but
also the struggle against climate change. Conversely, cutting trees to make way
for farming and other purposes —is a disaster for both the species and the
climate; recent estimates suggest that deforestation accounts for slightly over
10 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, much smaller than the
emissions from vehicles and power plants, but significant (and avoidable)
nonetheless.
There are two important parallel approaches to the interconnected climate
and species crises. One is to transform agricultural practices, the other is to
enlarge the world’s supply of legally protected landscapes that cannot be
touched for any commercial purpose. As to the first, farmers could figure out
how to produce more food on fewer acres, and in ways that help the soil retain
carbon; consumers could help by making smarter food choices, like eating more
locally sourced food, and cutting back on meat and dairy products that require
immense amounts of land for livestock.
Second, governments should mandate a significant increase in protected
areas, both on land and at sea. Partly as a result of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, a treaty agreed upon in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro along with
a landmark agreement on climate change, nations have set aside about 15 percent
of the world’s land and 7 percent of its oceans by setting up wilderness areas
and nature preserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment